Your Opinion

How long will the U.S. federal court system continue to use the 100 to 1 ration to separate crack cocaine versus powder cocaine offenders?Will politicians continue to act blind to the o

Injustice in drug sentencing is based on race

To the Editor:

How long will the U.S. federal court system continue to use the 100 to 1 ration to separate crack cocaine versus powder cocaine offenders?

Will politicians continue to act blind to the obvious fact that this is wrong and has created a racial issue. Crack is a solid form of powder cocaine; the active chemical component in the two is the cocaine alkaloid.

Over the past decade, there have been multiple attempts and scientific studies to rid this 100 to 1 ratio thats now used to sentence offenders. Without cocaine, crack can not exist. In fact, crack is a diluted form of cocaine. Yet to suggest that 1 gram of cocaine is to be measured as 100 grams of cocaine in which more than 100 grams of crack could be made.

This isnt rocket science, this is cold hard facts and its been far too long of an injustice on African-Americans. Heres a picture to paint: 1 gram of crack perhaps the minimum amount used by addicts daily; 100 grams of powder cocaine enough to kill several addicts.

Whats wrong with this picture? Sen. Webb stated and I quote. African-Americans make up 12 percent of the nations population, and account for 32 percent of all drug arrests, yet a staggering 79 percent of those sentenced to prison terms and make up near half of the countrys prison system drug offenders.

In the March 26 issue of Parade magazine, he said: Either were the most evil people in the world or something seriously is wrong. In the March 2009 issue of Ebony, Barrack Obama said The real difference between the two is the color of the skin of the people using them and Attorney General Eric Holden said America is a coward when it comes to race issues.

With the economy in mind and given staggering growth in Americans prisons, when is enough enough. Even former President Bill Clinton apologized to African-Americans for not finding the problem while in office. So here is my Justice or Just Us.

Jimmy D. Gagum

Petersburg

Bigotry is not an American value

To the Editor:

Now more than ever, we need a rational and respectful dialogue about how to fix our countrys broken immigration system. But comments like Texas Representative Betty Browns recent assertion that legal Chinese American immigrants should adopt Anglophone names that are easier for Americans to deal with represents precisely the kind of divisive rhetoric that will keep us from such a levelheaded debate.

Browns callous suggestion that Chinese American citizens are not American is symptomatic of the veiled bigotry that underlies much of the immigration debate across the nation. It also begs the question of why state legislators across the country would want to associate with the organization that Brown helped found to propagate racially divisive policies.

Rep. Brown is a charter member of the anti-immigrant special interest group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI). SLLI promotes a range of anti-immigrant policies to rescind the rights of legal immigrants, all of which have the effect of promoting discrimination and separating immigrants from their communities. The group is a close ally of the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR), having promoted their model legislation and conducted several joint press conferences. This is same FAIR that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group.

With these policies and Browns incendiary comments in mind, legislators who want to have a rational debate over immigration should have second thoughts before continuing their support of the SLLI agenda.

Fortunately, there is ample reason to believe that many will do just that. While Browns statement is symptomatic of the ugliest sentiments underlying the immigration debate, our country as a whole is better than those sentiments. We are the proud inheritors of a tradition of respecting the freedoms of a diverse population.

Surely the freedom to name ones child as one wishes is one that Americans should be dedicated to protecting. The fact that a large majority of Americans elected as President the son of an immigrant, a man with the inconvenient name of Barack Obama, is a strong sign that Rep. Brown is out of touch.

If we are to resolve the immigration impasse, we need everyone at the table to engage in constructive, rational debate. Their repeated attempts to marginalize legal U.S. citizens, suggest that SLLI is not interested in such a debate. Browns remarks merely confirm that the groups politics are not so much concerned with legal immigration as they are with pitting native-born and recently immigrated Americans against each other.

If the members of SLLI are serious about having a constructive debate about practical immigration reform, they should think seriously about the message Rep. Browns remarks sends and reconsider whether they wish to be associated with a group that spreads such messages. A failure to do so will only betray the kind of intolerance that will move us backward rather than forward in solving one of the nations most pressing problems.

Submit Content

Market Place

Social Media

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
The Progress-Index ~ 15 Franklin Street, Petersburg, VA 23803 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service